http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: H.C. PUTTASWAMY AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT, BANGALORE AND

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/11/1990

BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR  295            1990 SCR  Supl. (2) 552  1991 SCC  Supl.  (2) 421 JT 1990 (4)   474  1990 SCALE  (2)942

ACT:     Karnataka  Civil  Services (General  Recruitment)  Rules 1977-Rule  6(3)(b)--Second  Division Clerks  in  subordinate courts--Benefit  of age  relaxation--Grant  of--Humanitarian approach--Necessity for.     Article  229 of the Constitution--Appointment  of  court staff-Chief  Justice/Administrative Judge--Not  an  absolute ruler--To  operate in a clean world and remain committed  to the constitutional ethos and traditions of his calling.

HEADNOTE:     Appointments  to the posts of Second Division Clerks  in all  the State Departments of the Karnataka Govt.  are  gov- erned  by the Karnataka Civil Services  (Ministerial  Posts) Recruitment  Rules,  1966 and the power  to  make  selection vests  in the State Public Service Commission. Each  Depart- ment  notifies  the number of required posts to  the  Public Service  Commission and the Commission after  following  the prescribed  procedure  selects persons. The said  Rules  are made applicable to the judicial department also by statutory Rules  called the Karnataka Subordinate Courts  (Ministerial and  other posts) Recruitment Rules, 1977. Contrary  to  the said  statutory Rules by Notification dated  29.5.1978,  the High  Court of Karnataka invited applications for the  posts of  40  Second Division Clerks and 25 posts of  Typists  and Typists-copyists in the establishment of the High Court. The notification  stated that the selection would be to fill  up the  then existing posts and for preparing a  waiting  list. Large number of candidates including the appellants  submit- ted  their applications. The then Chief Justice of the  High Court  appointed  as many as 398 candidates  as  against  40 posts advertised; he retained 56 on the establishment of the High Court and the rest were transferred to the  subordinate courts.  These appointments were made during the years  1980 to September 1982.     In  1983 seven persons who had applied for the pests  in response  to  the advertisement dated 29.5.1978,  moved  the High Court by means of writ petitions challenging the valid- ity of all the aforesaid appointments. They urged that  they had better merit than the appointees and the 553

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

appointments  made  by the Chief Justice from time  to  time without considering their case was arbitrary and in  deroga- tion  of  the rules of recruitment. The High  Court  by  its order date 21.1.1988 allowed the writ petitions and  quashed the  appointments.  The affected persons  filed  a  petition before this Court against the order of the High Court  which was dismissed by this court with certain directions so  that the petitioners could, as far as possible be absorbed.     The  Petitioners however being dissatisfied,  filed  the instant  review  petitions on the plea that  the  directions issued by this Court are not likely to ensure to the benefit of  a large number of petitioners, as majority of  them  had already  crossed the age of 40 years and thus would  not  be able  to avail of the benefit of age relaxation  under  Rule 6(3)(b)  of the Karnataka Civil Services  (General  Recruit- ment) Rules 1977, that they had put in more than 10 years of service  and that it would cause them irreparable injury  if they  are  thrown out of employment at that stage  of  their life, as they are not likely to come anywhere near the  zone of selection in the event of fresh selection.     This Court admitted the review petition after notice  to the  Respondents,  granted  special leave  to  appeal  after recalling  its earlier order dated 30.4.1990;  and  allowing the resultant appeals,     HELD:  The judiciary is the custodian of  constitutional principles  which  are essential to the maintenance  of  the rule  of law. It is the vehicle for the protection of a  set of  values  which  are an integral part of  our  social  and political philosophy. Judges are the most visible actors  in the administration of justice. Their case decisions are  the most  publicly  visible outcome. But the  administration  of justice  is  just not deciding disputed cases.  It  involves great  deal  more than that. Any realistic analysis  of  the administration  of  justice  in the Courts  must  also  take account  of the totality of the Judges behaviour  and  their administrative  roles.  They  may appear to  be  only  minor aspects  of the administration of justice, but  collectively they are not trivial. They constitute a substantial part  of the mosaic which represents the ordinary man’s perception of what the courts are and how the judges go about their work.     The  Chief Justice or any other Administrative Judge  is not  an  absolute ruler. Nor he is a free-wheeler.  He  must operate in the clean world of law, not in the  neighbourhood of sordid atmosphere. He has a duty to ensure that in carry- ing out the administrative functions, he is actuated by same principles and values as those of the Court he is 554 serving.  He cannot depart from and indeed must remain  com- mitted  to  the constitutional ethos and traditions  of  his calling.  Those who are expected to oversee the  conduct  of others,  must  necessarily  maintain a  higher  standard  of ethical and intellectual rectitude. The public  expectations do not seem to be less exacting.     The circumstances of the instant case, however,  justify a  humanitarian approach and indeed, the appellants seem  to deserve justice ruled by mercy.     Lila  Dhar  v. State of Rajasthan, [1981] 1 SCR  320  at 326;  A.K. Yadav v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1985] 4  SCC 417; State of U.P.v. Refiquddin and Ors., [1988] 1 SCR  794; Miss  Shainda Hasan v. State of U.P. and Ors., [1990] 2  All India  Services Law Journal 93; Channabasaviah v.  State  of Mysore and Ors., [1965] 1 SCR 360; referred to.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

JUDGMENT: